From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
Mac Elrod wrote:
> >The thing is, the labels for the boxes could be whatever one
> >needs/desires. Just think how much easier/faster cataloging could be
> >if new and/or temporary personnel could get up to speed >quickly ...
> And so can enter the name of the person who donated the item to the
> library under "Contributor"?
I'm talking about labels on the *forms*, not the values of the data. What I mean by having choices on how the boxes are labelled, would be such things as:
or What does the book call itself?
For the "Contributor" example you give, there would be labels for the box such as:
Who gave this to the library?
If we're talking about a name associated with the work, there might be a box labelled:
Who created part of the content of this item?
The possibilities are virtually infinite, and have the potential to make things *so* much easier, faster, and more accurate than they are now.
> Words are ambiguous in all languages, and don't correspond to
> elements. Who would know to enter a criminal defendant under
No, the question is "Why would anybody enter a criminal defendant under 'Author'?" That's the whole point I'm making. "Author" is NOT the correct relationship designator to use for a defendant, and a sensible input form would prevent such a thing from happening.
Whoever creates the input forms will of course assign labels that are appropriate to the elements and that make sense. There should be problems only when someone tries to use a form designed for someone who works in a different language.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
So instead of the 70 or so options we have now for title (ca. 7 fields with 10 or so subfields each) you'd be satisfied with a single mnemonic input box- "Title"? Or if not, I can't imagine 70 blank boxes or dropdown boxes would be quicker for a professional cataloger than coded fields/indicators/subfields. I thought we were going for better granularity, not none. The more I hear, the more I think this is a project to dumb down and eliminate the professionals by institutions that are looking harder at the bottom line than the quality of work. I mean, LC doesn't even think series are important any more. And don't get me started on OCLC's business practices.
Technical Services Librarian
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu